I have to admit I'm not 100% sure what is you're disagreeing with here.
I suspect what you're leaving out here is that in interpreting what we see on screen, we take into account more information than what we see in any specific scene.
Agreed. However, I think it's exactly when we rely on information from another scene--especially another episode--that our conclusions are most likely going to be controversial.
For instance, I have no particular reason to think Andrew is lying in Damage (beyond, perhaps, a desire to believe that Buffy wouldn't leave her faith in Angel)
Some people have not only the desire to believe but the belief itself, which they would argue is justified by information they've gotten from other scenes in other episodes.
And I do think that kind of double-checking is one of the ways in which we assess the plausibility of competing interpretations.
Sounds good to me. It's just that I don't hear so much "This is why my competing interpretation, while no more or less coherent than yours, is nonetheless more plausible" as "This is what really happened, and here's why" (which is itself admittedly better than "This is what happened and anyone who disagrees is an idiot").
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 06:32 pm (UTC)I suspect what you're leaving out here is that in interpreting what we see on screen, we take into account more information than what we see in any specific scene.
Agreed. However, I think it's exactly when we rely on information from another scene--especially another episode--that our conclusions are most likely going to be controversial.
For instance, I have no particular reason to think Andrew is lying in Damage (beyond, perhaps, a desire to believe that Buffy wouldn't leave her faith in Angel)
Some people have not only the desire to believe but the belief itself, which they would argue is justified by information they've gotten from other scenes in other episodes.
And I do think that kind of double-checking is one of the ways in which we assess the plausibility of competing interpretations.
Sounds good to me. It's just that I don't hear so much "This is why my competing interpretation, while no more or less coherent than yours, is nonetheless more plausible" as "This is what really happened, and here's why" (which is itself admittedly better than "This is what happened and anyone who disagrees is an idiot").